Share this story

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to preempt part of a San Francisco ordinance that promotes broadband competition in apartment buildings and other multi-tenant structures. But it's not clear exactly what effect the preemption will have, because San Francisco says the FCC's Republican majority has misinterpreted what the law does.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plan partially overturns San Francisco's Article 52, which lets Internet service providers use the existing wiring inside multi-unit buildings even if another ISP already serves the building. The FCC said it's preempting the law "to the extent it requires the sharing of in-use wiring." But Pai's proposal admits the FCC doesn't know whether the San Francisco law actually requires sharing of in-use wiring, which makes it difficult to understand whether the FCC preemption will change anything in practice.

Further Reading

San Francisco itself told the FCC that its law doesn't apply to in-use wiring, and the law's text never uses the phrase "in-use." Instead, it applies to "any existing wiring," which the FCC says could be interpreted to include wiring that's actively being used by another ISP.

The goal of the city law is clearly to give residents the ability to switch from one ISP to another and allow whichever ISP the resident chooses to use the wire heading into that resident's apartment unit. Statements from ISPs indicate that each ISP still has to install its own wiring in a building to connect the building to the ISP's network but that any ISP can use the wires heading directly into each apartment unit.

While it's unlikely that a wire heading into one apartment unit would literally be used by two ISPs at the same time, Pai's proposal claims that ambiguity over whether the law does allow simultaneous use of wires is a good enough reason to preempt the law.

As we've previously reported, the city ordinance applies when the inside wiring belongs to the property owner. Under the rule, property owners who have outfitted their buildings with Internet wiring cannot deny access to ISPs, making it harder for them to strike exclusive deals with Internet providers.

Pai claimed that the city's rule "deters broadband deployment" and infringes on the FCC's regulation of cable wiring. The Pai-led Republican majority ensured that the preemption passed with a 3-2 vote, while the FCC's two Democrats voted against the preemption. The FCC's decision to preempt the rule came in response to a February 2017 petition from the Multifamily Broadband Council (MBC), a trade group for ISPs that serve multi-tenant properties.

“Crazy” vote to prevent competition

Today's FCC decision "stop[s] efforts in California designed to encourage competition in multi-tenant environments," FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said at today's meeting. "Specifically, we say to the city of San Francisco—where more than half of the population rents their housing, often in multi-tenant units—that they cannot encourage broadband competition. This is crazy."

Rosenworcel pointed out that the FCC gave up its own Title II regulatory authority over broadband when it repealed net neutrality rules yet is now claiming the authority to stop local broadband regulation.

"We somehow claim we have unfettered authority when it comes to broadband in buildings but disown our general authority over the same in our net neutrality proceeding, where we pronounced broadband beyond the reach of this agency," Rosenworcel said.

Pai said at today's meeting that San Francisco "has had every opportunity to mount a substantive defense of an in-use wire sharing mandate and it has utterly failed to do so."

An announcement from Pai's office argued that "[r]equired sharing of in-use wiring deters broadband deployment, undercuts the Commission's rules regarding control of cable wiring in residential MTEs [multi-tenant environments] and threatens the Commission's framework to protect the technical integrity of cable systems for the benefit of viewers."

San Francisco could appeal the preemption in court. The city could also argue that the FCC's preemption doesn't actually change anything, since city leaders say that the law doesn't apply to in-use wiring.

Pelosi and SF mayor objected

The US House of Representatives already voted to block Pai's proposal on June 26. But OKs from the Senate and President Trump are also needed to forbid the FCC from preempting San Francisco's law.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed expressed her opposition in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and all five FCC commissioners. San Francisco filed that letter into the FCC docket.

The city applies its wire-sharing rule to "buildings where the property owner had not allowed multiple providers," Breed wrote.

Further Reading

"San Francisco adopted Article 52 because it is uneconomic and, in the case of many older buildings, impossible, for multiple carriers to install their own wiring to reach each occupant," she wrote. "Consequently, rather than fostering competition, the Proposed Order would strip occupants of many MTEs in San Francisco of a meaningful choice of communications providers."

Pelosi wrote a letter to Pai asking him to halt the vote.

"This proposal is deeply misguided and would undermine freedom of choice, increase costs, and reduce service quality for residents, as it puts a chilling effect on much-needed competition in the telecommunications sector," Pelosi told Pai.

The [FCC's] Proposed Order also suggests that this "forced sharing of in-use facilities... encourages providers to [get a] free ride on existing infrastructure rather than building their own." In making this statement, the Proposed Order ignores clear language in Article 52 that a "property owner is entitled to just and reasonable compensation from a communications services provider." Article 52, therefore, lowers the cost for a competitive provider to obtain access to an MTE, it does not provide a so-called "free ride." Article 52 was developed with the active participation of AT&T, Comcast, the Chamber of Commerce, the Building Owners and Management Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, regional Internet service providers, and others to achieve a balanced approach.

Dispute over SF law’s wording

While the FCC said it is preempting the San Francisco law "to the extent it requires the sharing of in-use wiring," Breed's letter to Pelosi and the FCC said that "Article 52 does not require sharing of 'in-use' wiring."

A San Francisco filing with the FCC quoted Sonic, an ISP, as saying that it is "technically infeasible for two service providers to literally share inside wire without significant degradation to both their services." Article 52 prevents that possibility by letting property owners deny requests to share existing wiring when it would harm existing ISPs' ability to provide service, San Francisco argued.

Monkeybrains, an ISP that relied on the law to serve buildings that previously had just one ISP, offered an explanation that seems to clear up whether "in-use" wires are being shared. Monkeybrains told the FCC the following:

As a matter of course, Monkeybrains and other ISPs always build their own infrastructure including wiring and switching to each Intermediate Distribution Frame ("IDF") in a building, and then may make use of an existing wire from the nearest IDF to the unit. In every circumstance, we only use this existing wire when it is no longer "in-use," or actively subscribed, by an end-user. Following the end-user's confirmation of their intent to terminate service with their previous provider, we will plug that existing wire into our own switch in the nearest IDF.

The FCC has "contorted" the San Francisco law into a "non-existent bogeyman, suggesting that the ordinance compels sharing of wiring that is already in use," Rosenworcel said. "This is simply not true. In fact, San Francisco has told us on the record that this is not what the law does. But even if it were true, the agency fails to determine here if such sharing would even be technically possible. All of which begs the question, why is the FCC doing this? Why are we preempting an imaginary possibility in a city ordinance in San Francisco?"

Pai accused San Francisco of playing word games, saying in today's meeting that "it is difficult to understand how anyone can be harmed by a decision to preempt a city mandate that the city itself claims doesn't exist." Pai said that if the city is correct that its law doesn't apply to in-use wiring, there's no reason for it be concerned about the preemption.

"All of this suggests that the opposition here is driven not by the facts, not by the law, but instead by that crass impulse in politics, 'if he's for it, I'm against it,'" Pai said.

Pai's proposal said the FCC doesn't need to fully understand San Francisco's law in order to preempt it.

"We need not definitively determine whether Article 52 requires building owners to permit the sharing of in-use wiring... the record demonstrates that the appearance alone is enough to have a significant deterrent effect on investment" and that "the ambiguity itself about whether Article 52 requires in-use wire sharing has had a chilling effect on broadband and video investment," Pai's proposal said.

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a Democrat, argued that the Republican majority's interpretation of the San Francisco law is unreasonable. Starks said:

[I]t is a fundamental canon of construction that a law should not be interpreted unfavorably where there are other interpretations that do not present a problem. The Commission seemed all too eager here to lean into a potential interpretation of San Francisco's law that would require preemption. But a more reasonable and unproblematic interpretation exists, one which the Commission has not fully considered. San Francisco's law prohibits property owners from refusing to allow new providers to use "any existing wiring" in a building. As the majority's analysis admits, this language is at worst merely ambiguous and can be reasonably read to not include in-use wiring. Further, the law then proceeds to expressly permit property owners to refuse access to wiring wherever doing so would have an "adverse" effect on service. This is precisely the issue the majority argues would be caused by an in-use wire sharing requirement. Therefore, to the extent that in-use wire sharing poses any technical problems, San Francisco's law can and should be read not to require it.

165 Reader Comments

So it was a poorly written and ambiguous law, which isn't atypical for municipal legislation.

Conservatives suck at a lot of things but they do a good job of calling out bad laws so that they aren't exploited in the future. They believe that no law is better than bad law (even in good spirit) and I tend to side with them on that viewpoint.

"The law perverted!"

I don't agree with this at all. You can't let fear of potential problems paralyze you from solving your actual problems.

California law prohibits any city offering municipal broadband if already served by a private company. Lobbyists are influential. Hopefully the FCC can weaken that law as well with their consistent approach of removing any government regulation of the internet. Having municipal internet also seems like a slippery slope, as private competition could be taken out, but I plan to sign up day one since my city is currently implementing it.

Oh it gets better than just prohibiting if existing private service is available. If private service is ever offered after the buildout of a municipal network, the municipality must lease or sell the network to the private entity.

(af) Construct, own, improve, maintain, and operate broadband facilities and provide broadband services. For purposes of this section, broadband has the same meaning as in subdivision (a) of Section 5830 of the Public Utilities Code. A district shall comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 53167) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 when providing broadband services pursuant to this subdivision. If the district later determines that a private person or entity is ready, willing, and able to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband facilities and to provide broadband services, and to sell those services at a comparable cost and quality of service as provided by the district, the district may do one of the following:

(1) Diligently transfer its title, ownership, maintenance, control, and operation of those broadband facilities and services at a fair market value to that private person or entity.

(2) Lease the operation of those broadband facilities at a fair market value to that private person or entity.

They don't have to sell it. It says they may. And I'm ok with leasing use of the network out so long as it's not exclusive. I think most of us would feel just fine if the municipality were to run the last mile fiber, and ISPs concentrated on providing services on it.

So it was a poorly written and ambiguous law, which isn't atypical for municipal legislation.

Conservatives suck at a lot of things but they do a good job of calling out bad laws so that they aren't exploited in the future. They believe that no law is better than bad law (even in good spirit) and I tend to side with them on that viewpoint.

"The law perverted!"

I don't agree with this at all. You can't let fear of potential problems paralyze you from solving your actual problems.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

If you'd like, I can give you (via PM, of course), an intro to this experimental brain surgeon who is pioneering a VR-like overlay on the human brain. When I see anyone from the current administration, they look and talk exactly like Mr. Bean.

So it surprised me when CraigJ described KellyAnne "I Put the Con in" Conway as a thin blonde.

How 'experimental' is this contraption? How many have tried it? Besides you.

Remember what Zaphod Beeblebrox did so no one could scan his brain to see he would steal the Heart of Gold (Ooooh, retro-active spoiler alert there)? Kind of like that.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

If you'd like, I can give you (via PM, of course), an intro to this experimental brain surgeon who is pioneering a VR-like overlay on the human brain. When I see anyone from the current administration, they look and talk exactly like Mr. Bean.

So it surprised me when CraigJ described KellyAnne "I Put the Con in" Conway as a thin blonde.

How 'experimental' is this contraption? How many have tried it? Besides you.

Remember what Zaphod Beeblebrox did so no one could scan his brain to see he would steal the Heart of Gold (Ooooh, retro-active spoiler alert there)? Kind of like that.

But it works for me. Then again, I'm just this guy, you know?

Well, I don't know these people you're referring to, but, if it works for you, I'm happy for you. I'm not good at being experimental, so I'll stick to what I know. I appreciate the offer though.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

If you'd like, I can give you (via PM, of course), an intro to this experimental brain surgeon who is pioneering a VR-like overlay on the human brain. When I see anyone from the current administration, they look and talk exactly like Mr. Bean.

So it surprised me when CraigJ described KellyAnne "I Put the Con in" Conway as a thin blonde.

How 'experimental' is this contraption? How many have tried it? Besides you.

Remember what Zaphod Beeblebrox did so no one could scan his brain to see he would steal the Heart of Gold (Ooooh, retro-active spoiler alert there)? Kind of like that.

But it works for me. Then again, I'm just this guy, you know?

Well, I don't know these people you're referring to, but, if it works for you, I'm happy for you. I'm not good at being experimental, so I'll stick to what I know. I appreciate the offer though.

Did you just admit not knowing who Zaphod Beeblebrox is?

This may actually be more momentous than Asvarduil admitting he never saw Blazing Saddles.

Gee, I could have sworn the FCC said that it wanted to reduce the power it had and regulations in place in order to "increase competition".

I miss the days when businesses and government kept their lovemaking in private and out of sight, since at least the public could at least pretend it didn't exist (at least to the extent that it really does). Nowadays, they just hump each other like a couple of dogs right on the front lawn without a care in the world.

I find myself in a constant state of confusion at how we seem to believe the words of, and/or refuse to take meaningful action against, any large entity these days. AT&T and the FCC are taking us all for fools, weaponizing the very things they promise us they'll never do.

No, not *more* momentous. Not seeing Blazing Saddles is just severe self-deprivation. He's just being stubborn in his self-denial of pleasure. I plead a limited capacity to see everything ever made. Chalk it up to personal snobbery if you wish. Even I have limits.

Consider your building.You own apartment in such building.The first provider that comes over installs wiring.

Is the provider then suppose to "remove" the wiring away because it "belongs to them"?So every new provider is suppose to bring, and charge you for the wiring?

Why is this regulated anyway? You installed the wiring, but I paid for it, it's my apartment, why can't I just reuse it as I wish?

Why would you put in a contract that the wiring I paid for belongs to you? And why do we need to have such specific regulations? Is this greed or I am just naive?

In my home country, we've changed carriers many times: for satellite TV, for coaxial cable Internet, for DSL. I even had another provider reuse the antenna and just install a new receiver. The previous provider never removed it and the new provider was the happiest to have an antenna already there. It just had to be repointed.

While typically no one ever removes wiring from a building, because it costs money, and provides no benefit, and provides a potential later expense, the question of who paid for it isn't always so clear. In apartment complexes, where the sort of agreement from the article is the most widespread, wiring happens in a few different ways:1) the building owner just pays for it and lets the tenant use whoever they want2) the building owner receives a payment from an ISP to cover the cost of wiring each unit according to how they want, all at once... in exchange for that, the ISP wants to be sure they have the ability to use those wires, at least priority access, since they paid for them, often without any guarantee of service3) the building owner doesn't wire the building, and leaves that problem to tenants and ISPs when they actually sign up for service, which typically results in worse wire runs done in a haphazard way

Obviously additional providers can install additional wiring at their own expense (assuming the building owner doesn't ban additional holes in the building they own), but it kind of makes sense that in the case of 2, the ISP has priority access to the wires they pay for.

Again, the whole article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to disagree with, as the FCC just clarified unused non-live wires may be used by anybody, but live wires may not. It seems like nobody disagrees with that, just they don't want the FCC mandating it.

No, not *more* momentous. Not seeing Blazing Saddles is just severe self-deprivation. He's just being stubborn in his self-denial of pleasure. I plead a limited capacity to see everything ever made. Chalk it up to personal snobbery if you wish. Even I have limits.

Please, by all that is holy, do not try the movie first. I didn't hate it--but it did not do the source material justice. Either books or the radio version is a better start. Even the BBC TV series, with early Doctor Who levels of special effects, is preferable, though the third option behind the written five-part trilogy or the twelve original radio "fits," or episodes. Should you go crazy and try both the books and the radio versions, you will discover that--although both were written by Adams, they have significant differences. I don't think he was wired to rinse and repeat.

Upon completing Hitchhiker, you may or may not wish to explore the interconnectedness of all things Dirk Gently.

This will make you a hoopy frood. And also help you get the "Wonko the Sane" references.

California law prohibits any city offering municipal broadband if already served by a private company. Lobbyists are influential. Hopefully the FCC can weaken that law as well with their consistent approach of removing any government regulation of the internet. Having municipal internet also seems like a slippery slope, as private competition could be taken out, but I plan to sign up day one since my city is currently implementing it.

The slope has already been slipped down. Nobody got hurt. If you find that difficult, perhaps it's because you're confusing means and ends ?

Nobody got hurt? The placenta isn't even out yet. Here in my state, they sold the lottery to voters by saying the money would go to education. A few years after it passed, a simple vote switched it to the general fund and no longer for education.

With municipal internet, sure it's great, solid, fast, and somewhat cheap, but then when you want an addition put onto the house they will check your browsing history to see if you're with their political party. Gives the local authorities TREMENDOUS power.

California law prohibits any city offering municipal broadband if already served by a private company. Lobbyists are influential. Hopefully the FCC can weaken that law as well with their consistent approach of removing any government regulation of the internet. Having municipal internet also seems like a slippery slope, as private competition could be taken out, but I plan to sign up day one since my city is currently implementing it.

The slope has already been slipped down. Nobody got hurt. If you find that difficult, perhaps it's because you're confusing means and ends ?

Nobody got hurt? The placenta isn't even out yet. Here in my state, they sold the lottery to voters by saying the money would go to education. A few years after it passed, a simple vote switched it to the general fund and no longer for education.

With municipal internet, sure it's great, solid, fast, and somewhat cheap, but then when you want an addition put onto the house they will check your browsing history to see if you're with their political party. Gives the local authorities TREMENDOUS power.

The [FCC's] Proposed Order also suggests that this "forced sharing of in-use facilities... encourages providers to [get a] free ride on existing infrastructure rather than building their own." In making this statement, the Proposed Order ignores clear language in Article 52 that a "property owner is entitled to just and reasonable compensation from a communications services provider." Article 52, therefore, lowers the cost for a competitive provider to obtain access to an MTE, it does not provide a so-called "free ride." Article 52 was developed with the active participation of AT&T, Comcast, the Chamber of Commerce, the Building Owners and Management Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, regional Internet service providers, and others to achieve a balanced approach.

On a more serious, I don't recall anything in the Telecom Act of 1996 that linked pre-emption to Title II. Did I miss something?

To be clear, I dislike the ruling, and theiy clearly runs against the Act"s directives to increase competition. I just don"t recall anything that says Title II is required for valid pre-emption (which this is not).

Pai accused San Francisco of playing word games, saying in today's meeting that "it is difficult to understand how anyone can be harmed by a decision to preempt a city mandate that the city itself claims doesn't exist." Pai said that if the city is correct that its law doesn't apply to in-use wiring, there's no reason for it be concerned about the preemption.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "mandate" here, but it seems like SF is in the process of turning said mandate into law, so I don't understand how that's playing word games. It seems like he's saying a rule to pre-empt a proposed road won't harm anyone because the road doesn't exist. Am I missing something?

What's at dispute here is what precisely the law covers - it's more like he's saying a rule preventing a proposed road from going through a particular area won't harm anyone because the people proposing the road insist it won't go through there anyway. More specifically, there's a few different ways wiring can be structured - there could be a direct run from each apartment to some equipment room, but cable internet often uses shared wiring with the cable running from the provider to apartment A, then B, then C, etc and a passive splitter at each apartment. As written, this law seems to require building owners to allow multiple service providers to install equipment that uses the same shared wiring unless they can prove it would disrupt the existing services. It's this part that the FCC is pre-empting, and this is very much within their jurisdiction since cable TV and internet systems are surprisingly effective RF transmitters within some extremely regulated bands of spectrum.

San Francisco insists that of course the law doesn't apply to in-use wiring and the FCC is just misunderstanding it. As Pai points out, if this is true then the FCC preemption has no effect on their law at all and they can hardly claim that the FCC is blocking their plans.

So let me get this straight, Aji killed net neutrality, because he wants to promote competition (in a country that is divided into fiefdoms but that is another matter), yet then votes to kill competition when there is real and actual ability to compete....

Got it.

Is this some kind of Republican mind fuck where they chant free market, competition while at the same time killing both? God they are confusing to follow.

California law prohibits any city offering municipal broadband if already served by a private company. Lobbyists are influential. Hopefully the FCC can weaken that law as well with their consistent approach of removing any government regulation of the internet. Having municipal internet also seems like a slippery slope, as private competition could be taken out, but I plan to sign up day one since my city is currently implementing it.

The slope has already been slipped down. Nobody got hurt. If you find that difficult, perhaps it's because you're confusing means and ends ?

Nobody got hurt? The placenta isn't even out yet. Here in my state, they sold the lottery to voters by saying the money would go to education. A few years after it passed, a simple vote switched it to the general fund and no longer for education.

With municipal internet, sure it's great, solid, fast, and somewhat cheap, but then when you want an addition put onto the house they will check your browsing history to see if you're with their political party. Gives the local authorities TREMENDOUS power.

I'm just picturing Pai trying to plug 2 network patch cable into one outlet at the same time....wouldn't it be the forcing of ISPs to share switching equipment that would cause a problem?

An apartment owner can sign a contract with an ISP that gives them exclusive access to all pre-existing network wires in a building. The San Francisco law would let other ISP companies use those network wires that are already "in use".

The problem with Pai's interpretation is now a telecom company can sue the incumbent company if the change is made before service actually ends. That means that, if you have paid for a month of Comcast and Monkeybrains comes in and changes a cable on the 27th day, Monkeybrains violated the law. While Pai seems to be saying "you can't run too signals" the actual wording, as reported, is "you can't touch anything with an existing signal, regardless of whether that signal is actually being used on that line". Don't think for a second that Comcast will let this slide. I mean, we all know Comcast and AT&T etc. are the class bullies and Ajit is the sleze ball principal who would gladly trade favors to let these miscrients not just off the hook, but make sure they got every advantage, secure in the knowledge that corruption is so rampant nobody will pick on a little fish except for the most egregious transgressions. I doubt that SF or Pelosi have picked up on the exact technicality but when they see this guy making a move they know someone's going to get beat up soon. And while courts might not side with this strict FCC rule interpretation, I doubt Monkeybrains etc. can fight it and so after the first letter, they will just have to go back to either installing their own lines everywhere or waiting for Comcast to take their sweet time actually disconnecting the cabling if they ever do.

And you can tell Ajit is a fly in the ointment from his whole "if it's not a problem then why are they concerned" act. Yeah. If it's not a problem, then why make such a specific ruling Ajit?

Consider your building.You own apartment in such building.The first provider that comes over installs wiring.

Is the provider then suppose to "remove" the wiring away because it "belongs to them"?So every new provider is suppose to bring, and charge you for the wiring?

Why is this regulated anyway? You installed the wiring, but I paid for it, it's my apartment, why can't I just reuse it as I wish?

Why would you put in a contract that the wiring I paid for belongs to you? And why do we need to have such specific regulations? Is this greed or I am just naive?

In my home country, we've changed carriers many times: for satellite TV, for coaxial cable Internet, for DSL. I even had another provider reuse the antenna and just install a new receiver. The previous provider never removed it and the new provider was the happiest to have an antenna already there. It just had to be repointed.

No, the first provider leaves the wiring in, and anyone else would have to install duplicate wiring.

Or the provider pays the landlord to only allow them to connect to the wiring, thereby preventing any other providers from being able to service that apartment building.

And it's regulated because of the potential for collusion between landlords and ISPs against customers, and because whomever owns the wiring is responsible for making sure it's in good condition - and the wires may be owned by someone besides the building owner.

Once the wiring is in the building the only thing that needs to be connected to is a modem of some sorts inside There could easily be multiple stuff in a cabinet if done that way. Sadly it is all sorts of fucky because we refuse to do proper LLU.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

If you'd like, I can give you (via PM, of course), an intro to this experimental brain surgeon who is pioneering a VR-like overlay on the human brain. When I see anyone from the current administration, they look and talk exactly like Mr. Bean.

So it surprised me when CraigJ described KellyAnne "I Put the Con in" Conway as a thin blonde.

How 'experimental' is this contraption? How many have tried it? Besides you.

Remember what Zaphod Beeblebrox did so no one could scan his brain to see he would steal the Heart of Gold (Ooooh, retro-active spoiler alert there)? Kind of like that.

But it works for me. Then again, I'm just this guy, you know?

Well, I don't know these people you're referring to, but, if it works for you, I'm happy for you. I'm not good at being experimental, so I'll stick to what I know. I appreciate the offer though.

No, not *more* momentous. Not seeing Blazing Saddles is just severe self-deprivation. He's just being stubborn in his self-denial of pleasure. I plead a limited capacity to see everything ever made. Chalk it up to personal snobbery if you wish. Even I have limits.

Please, by all that is holy, do not try the movie first. I didn't hate it--but it did not do the source material justice. Either books or the radio version is a better start. Even the BBC TV series, with early Doctor Who levels of special effects, is preferable, though the third option behind the written five-part trilogy or the twelve original radio "fits," or episodes. Should you go crazy and try both the books and the radio versions, you will discover that--although both were written by Adams, they have significant differences. I don't think he was wired to rinse and repeat.

Upon completing Hitchhiker, you may or may not wish to explore the interconnectedness of all things Dirk Gently.

This will make you a hoopy frood. And also help you get the "Wonko the Sane" references.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

I fear this approach, while beneficial to you in the short term, may come back to haunt you down the road. Every day she starts to slip a tiny bit further from reality, her mind eaten by the poison that is republican talking points. One day you hear a thing from the other room, but a strange gurgling sound. Checking it out you find your wife in a fetal position, staring mindlessly at the screen as El Presidente once again says "I didn't touch her, I don't even know her" as a video of his act of forcing himself on some innocent girl plays in the background.

You only option is extensive, and thanks to the GOP expensive mental health treatment, but the GOPs poison is so insidious that even after she seems well, every now and then you here her start to agree with Fox and Friends. That's when you know you've lost her.

I'm just picturing Pai trying to plug 2 network patch cable into one outlet at the same time....wouldn't it be the forcing of ISPs to share switching equipment that would cause a problem?

An apartment owner can sign a contract with an ISP that gives them exclusive access to all pre-existing network wires in a building..

Not legally, no they can't. However, the only restrictions in the law before was against the ISPs, telling them what they could and couldn't require and restrict. However, there wasn't any regulation concerning the property owners. An ISP couldn't require exclusivity via contract, but if a property owner just couldn't be bothered to allow any other ISP access, that's de facto exclusivity. And hey, that free cable the property owner is getting has nothing to do with it, contractually speaking.

The new San Francisco law gives the city the ability to regulate property owners, and force them to allow access to other ISPs, within reason.

While state and federal laws prohibit providers from entering into exclusive access agreements with property owners, nothing in state or federal law directly regulates property owners. The City and County of San Francisco can use its police power to facilitate opportunities for access to multiple occupancy buildings by communications services providers enable occupants to obtain communications services from the providers of their choice, while respecting the rights of property owners.

Is this some kind of Republican mind fuck where they chant free market, competition while at the same time killing both? God they are confusing to follow.

Here let me lay out a rule of thumb:

- Does this help consumers/citizens = bad

- Does this help multi-billion dollar ISPs attain power and money = good

Look at any recent FCC decision (under Pai) and it should clear things right up. Make sure to make a drinking game out of their statements anytime you see a response like 'investment' 'consumer choice' 'freedom'. You'll be dead in two days.

I wonder what would happen if San Francisco and other cities just gave an upright middle finger to Pai and went ahead and deployed municipal broadband anyhow.

I mean, what is the FCC going to do about that?

I assume eventually if anyone cared the people would be arrested and perhaps tried. I am certainly a proponent of states rights, but that has been a minority opinion for at least the past 100 years. I could imagine several states would like to ignore title 9, or federal marriage requirements. I know many here have major issues with states attempting to impose further abortion restrictions. Welcome to the party, where one size federal regulations are confining to many. Yet people though just desire more and more Federal control of their lives.

The thing is, the FCC has only 5 commissioners, and the party in the White House gets 3, and decides which is chairman. So the minority party can dissent/object all they want, the majority party can pretty much pass anything they want as long as the vote goes along party lines.

This worked out for us when Obama was in office and FCC Chairman Wheeler passed Title II net neutrality and other pro-consumer actions over Pai's objections (who was only a minority party commissioner at the time). It's biting us in the ass now that Pai has power and is pushing through everything he can to help his cronies at his former employer Verizon, before he eventually retires as Chairman/commissioner and goes back to work at Verizon.

I wonder what would happen if San Francisco and other cities just gave an upright middle finger to Pai and went ahead and deployed municipal broadband anyhow.

I mean, what is the FCC going to do about that?

There's ample evidence that the FCC has abdicated its regulatory responsibility to the FTC, and the FTC has actively worked (in a larger degree than Pai's FCC) to promote competition. So if San Francisco decides to deploy muni broadband, and the FCC objects, San Francisco can point out how the FCC isn't minding the regulatory store anyhow, and no longer has oversight in that respect. Let the FTC raise objections - if it dares. The FCC really doesn't deserve a place in the discussion.

Mitch McConnell himself would introduce a bill charging anyone who would do such a thing with domestic terrorism. Several states just did it for protests against pipelines, and you can bet he will block any attempt by the Senate to prevent such laws from going into effect.

Please stop the pain in my head that occurs anytime someone in this administration talks.

Do what I do. I have a self-imposed strict limit of any hearing from any administration member to 60 seconds +/- 10 seconds. I use my wife to keep me informed of the important stuff. I am living in relative bliss, but my poor wife frequently is heard yelling 'What an idiot!' from the other room. This system works well.

I fear this approach, while beneficial to you in the short term, may come back to haunt you down the road. Every day she starts to slip a tiny bit further from reality, her mind eaten by the poison that is republican talking points. One day you hear a thing from the other room, but a strange gurgling sound. Checking it out you find your wife in a fetal position, staring mindlessly at the screen as El Presidente once again says "I didn't touch her, I don't even know her" as a video of his act of forcing himself on some innocent girl plays in the background.

You only option is extensive, and thanks to the GOP expensive mental health treatment, but the GOPs poison is so insidious that even after she seems well, every now and then you here her start to agree with Fox and Friends. That's when you know you've lost her.

You make a valid point. However, I have detected when she's on the verge of cranial degradation by wails of 'What is wrong with these people!" and advise her to switch to my system for a day or two until sufficient healing has transpired. That appears to work, but she seems to have this ghoulish fascination that compels her to watch again. Sort of like watching a car wreck or slasher movies. Until I see symptoms of real harm, we'll keep this system going. If disaster occurs next election day, I fear we'll need a new system. Pray for us.

California law prohibits any city offering municipal broadband if already served by a private company. Lobbyists are influential. Hopefully the FCC can weaken that law as well with their consistent approach of removing any government regulation of the internet. Having municipal internet also seems like a slippery slope, as private competition could be taken out, but I plan to sign up day one since my city is currently implementing it.

Oh it gets better than just prohibiting if existing private service is available. If private service is ever offered after the buildout of a municipal network, the municipality must lease or sell the network to the private entity.

(af) Construct, own, improve, maintain, and operate broadband facilities and provide broadband services. For purposes of this section, broadband has the same meaning as in subdivision (a) of Section 5830 of the Public Utilities Code. A district shall comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 53167) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 when providing broadband services pursuant to this subdivision. If the district later determines that a private person or entity is ready, willing, and able to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband facilities and to provide broadband services, and to sell those services at a comparable cost and quality of service as provided by the district, the district may do one of the following:

(1) Diligently transfer its title, ownership, maintenance, control, and operation of those broadband facilities and services at a fair market value to that private person or entity.

(2) Lease the operation of those broadband facilities at a fair market value to that private person or entity.